Follow us on social

google cta
2020-09-23t155218z_20709791_rc2f4j9ad172_rtrmadp_3_health-coronavirus-usa-hearing-scaled

Rand Paul wants to kill $650M missile sale to Saudi Arabia

But getting Democratic colleagues to sign on may be more difficult that he thought.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Rand Paul’s office told RS today that the Republican senator is readying a joint resolution of disapproval to stop the Biden Administration’s expected sale of $650 million worth of “defensive” air-to-air missiles or AMRAAMs, as well as 596 missile launches to Saudi Arabia, as announced on Nov. 4

“A message needs to be sent to Saudi Arabia that we don’t approve of their war in Yemen," Paul said in a statement to Responsible Statecraft.

The news was also confirmed in an Intercept report this afternoon in which Paul said he aims to file a privileged motion to stop the export, which would guarantee an immediate floor vote on whether to disapprove the sale. That vote could occur within the next two weeks, according to the Intercept's Sara Sirota.

Interestingly, the article centered around Paul’s interest in generating support from his Democratic colleagues, particularly those who have typically been on the same page when it comes to U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf state neighbor, UAE. But as the report suggests, Biden’s fellow Dems aren’t hopping on the bandwagon right away, at least not yet.

Sen. Bernie Sanders did not show outright skepticism. He told the Intercept that he has yet to see the details, but he’s “not unsympathetic” to what Paul is trying to do. (UPDATE: According to Sirota, Sanders' office now says it will co-sponsor Paul's resolution).

Other comments speak to what could be the sticking point for many others — the difference between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons. At the beginning of his term, President Biden pledged to end all assistance to Riyadh for its “offensive” operations in Yemen. In the months since, analysts have scratched their heads over what that really means and whether the administration would find loopholes through which to drive new arms sales to Saudi Arabia anyway (there is one, approved by the Trump administration, still on hold).

The State Department has justified this latest deal of AMRAAMs by saying they would be used to “defend” the Saudis from cross-border attacks by the Houthis. Critics have responded by saying Riyadh could easily use to the missiles to enforce the economic blockade on Yemen — a form of offensive warfare as it's put tens of millions of Yemenis at risk of starvation and disease.

So far, it sounds like Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., normally a Saudi arms critic, is not sure. “My position generally has been to support truly defensive weapons sales to the Saudis, while opposing sales that could be used in offensive operations, particularly in Yemen,” he told Sirota.

Paul’s action would follow a joint resolution of disapproval introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Mich.) last week. Meanwhile, Sanders and Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would end all military assistance to Saudi Arabia for its war in Yemen (defensive, offensive, or otherwise). Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) passed similar language in the House version of the NDAA.


U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) looks on during a U.S. Senate Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Hearing, September 23, 2020. Alex Edelman/Pool via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.